May 12, 2010

Council approves watered-down watchdog office

Posted by Hal Dardick and John Byrne at 2:03 p.m.; updated at 2:15 p.m.

The Chicago City Council today voted to create a new watchdog office despite criticism it won't have the power to stop the kind of abuses that have seen dozens of aldermen sent to prison.

The ordinance was a response to Mayor Richard Daley's proposal to expand the powers of the city's current inspector general, who right now can only investigate the mayor's administration. They balked at the idea of giving the mayor more control over them, but were also worried that inaction would anger voters in next year's city elections.

Ald. Helen Shiller, 46th, said the proposal is a step in the right
direction, allowing the City Council to address criticism that they
don't have anyone keeping an eye on them. "Is this perfect? Nothing
we've ever done has been perfect, as far as I know," Shiller said.

The media unfairly paints aldermen as corrupt simply because they have
entered public service, Shiller said. "That's not borne out in fact,"
she said.

The ordinance enacted today by a 28-17 vote creates the Office of Legislative Inspector General, which will be headed by a person selected by aldermen. The office will have to seek permission to investigate an alderman. And that permission can only be sought if an accuser signs a sworn complaint – a longshot in the political atmosphere of City Hall, critics say.

The council inspector general would need permission to launch an investigation from the little-known Chicago Board of Ethics, which hasn’t found a single case of wrongdoing by aldermen since it was created in 1987. The same board also would determine if wrongdoing was committed if the legislative inspector general brought charges against an alderman or City Council employee.

Even if an investigation leads to any recommended discipline or reprimand in the case of an alderman, the accused will have the right to appeal that decision to a City Council committee.

"This is a toothless tiger that is constitutionally impaired," said Ald. Robert Fioretti, 2nd, who voted against the measure. "And yet we need oversight here, and it really wasn't presented in this ordinance."

Ald. Bernard Stone, 50th, continued his opposition to the City Council
inspector general, arguing law enforcement already does a good job
catching aldermen who break the law. The new City Council watchdog
would have too much power to follow politically motivated witch hunts,
Stone said.

In making his case, Stone erroneously referenced the theme song to the television show "M.A.S.H.," titled "Suicide is Painless."

"Suicide is dangerous. It'll kill you if you're successful," Stone said. "Ladies and gentlemen, you're about to commit suicide needlessly."

Media outlets and the public will not be convinced that the new
inspector general is doing any good anyway, Stone predicted. "As far as
the general public is concerned, we're all crooks anyway, so you won't
satisfy them," he said.

Stone was joined in opposition by Ald. Joe Moore, 49th. Moore made the case -- as he has for weeks -- that
the proposal is not strong enough. "A toothless tiger," he said.

"The bottom line is, people will see through this," Moore said, taking
particular issue with the proposal's requirement that a complainant
sign his or her name to a report alleging the wrongdoing by an alderman.

"Ladies and gentlemen, that's not the real world," Moore said.

But Moore agreed with Stone that the proposal the council approved today has too much danger of being used for political purposes. He
called for an inspector general who would be chosen by an independent
body.

Daley had sought to give the council oversight role to his Office of Inspector General, which in recent years has developed a reputation for independence under the leadership of former federal prosecutors.

Daley also proposed greater transparency for the work of the inspector general, as critics have long sought, and the transfer of internal hiring oversight from the much-criticized and beleaguered Office of Compliance to the inspector general. The ordinance approved today also does those two things.

The mayor's office was involved in the negotiations over the council compromise, and Daley has indicated he's OK with the measure.

Daley proposed the change in hiring oversight as part of his plan to ask a federal court this year to end years of monitoring of City Hall personnel decisions.

But Michael Shakman, the attorney who decades ago brought the case that barred politics from playing a role in most City Hall personnel decisions, has slammed the new ordinance as ineffective. He said the council shouldn't appoint its own watchdog and predicted people would be too afraid of retaliation to swear and sign formal complaints.

If Mr. Shakman says it is too weak and diluted to be of any use it no doubt is just that. Ms. Schiller's rationalization is pathetic. I guess since Royko retired no one at the Trib dares ask any questions that might expose this ordinance for the wate of time it obviously is.

This is another City of Chicago comedy sketch, right!? The Inspector General can't investigate the City Council, BUT, the Office of Legislative Inspector General, headed by someone "selected" by the very people they're supposed to investigate, can investigate them?
They can be investigated by this "Office of Legislative Inspector General," ONLY after being given permission to do so by "Chicago Board of Ethics, which hasn’t found a single case of wrongdoing by aldermen since it was created in 1987. The same board also would determine if wrongdoing was committed if the legislative inspector general brought charges against an alderman or City Council employee."

This is like creating a law stating you can arrest a criminal only if they allow the police to arrest them.

alderman are labeled as criminals and corrupt by almost everyone because almost all of them are! I'm still trying to figure out what they do, and why they need to be paid $100k+ for a part time job and getting huge expense accounts and perks.

So, this watchdog group is headed by a person selected BY THE ALDERMEN. (Maybe Rezko or Blago will be available soon.)

The watchdog group has seek permission to investigate an alderman. (I bet every "investigation" ends here.)

Permission can only be sought if an accuser signs a sworn complaint – a longshot.

The council inspector general would need permission to launch an investigation from the Chicago Board of Ethics (isn't "Chicago Board of Ethics" an oxymoron...).

The same Chicago Board of Ethics hasn’t found a single case of wrongdoing by aldermen since it was created in 1987 (23 years ago). The aldermen must be so saintly that I wonder why Chicago even NEEDS a Board of Ethics.

Even if (by some miracle or supernatural power) an investigation leads to any recommended discipline or reprimand in the case of an alderman, the accused will have the right to appeal that decision to a City Council committee (made up of his fellow ethical aldermen, no doubt).

This is what drives citizens/taxpayers crazy. How can these crooked aldermen keep a straight face when they talk about this? Better question: how can Chicago Democrats keep voting these pieces of garbage into office?

All 50 aldermen on the Chicago City Council had to file paperwork earlier this year detailing their outside income and gifts. The Tribune took that ethics paperwork and posted the information here for you to see. You can search by ward number or alderman's last name.

The Cook County Assessor's office has put together lists of projected median property tax bills for all suburban towns and city neighborhoods. We've posted them for you to get a look at who's paying more and who's paying less.

Past posts

Clout has a special meaning in Chicago, where it can be a noun, a verb or an adjective. This exercise of political influence in a uniquely Chicago style was chronicled in the Tribune cartoon "Clout Street" in the early 1980s. Clout Street, the blog, offers an inside look at the politics practiced from Chicago's City Hall to the Statehouse in Springfield, through the eyes of the Tribune's political and government reporters.